Religion is based on faith. Science is based on facts. Much of vinyl is a royal pain, but in many peoples' opinion, it's the most accurate at communicating the beauty of music. Digital is certainly more convenient, but I'm NOT lazy. For the masses of people who have never heard a great audio system, or who value convenience above accuracy, low res digital sound is "good enough".

[

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Ummm, science is also based on faith. Faith in the scientific method at the least. Faith in your techniques, faith in your level of control. Look at how much faith you have in your tests and yet they are bogus. Not saying that the record may not sound better (or worse) than the CD, merely that your conclusion that records are more accurate is unsupportable based upon your experience.

The rub is that you are taking it as an element of faith that the systemic variables are controlled to the point where the only delta is the medium and you are far, far from that condition. Infinitely far actually since without qualifications it's a limit, not an achievable condition. And it's hard to do much better since so much of the chain is beyond your control. Too many uncontrolled variables...

I believe science and faith are both good things, but we need to know their limits.

How do you know you are even actually reading this right now, Rick? You could be asleep and dreaming, so therefore, your act of reading this is an act of faith, even though you could, since this is a dream, fly like an eagle right now. But yet you are still reading this? Oh ye of little faith.

You are VERY confused. How do you know that my tests are flawed? All of science continually tries to improve it's theories through further testing. Of course, you always try to control variables. Those who oppose blind listening tests are really just lazy. Yes, of course, IMO. BTW, MF has participated in dozens of these tests, with identical results.

I don't know that for sure. It's been my experience that anyone who believes that a science is about facts and that scientists don't need faith is not a first rate scientist and is unlikely to be a good experimenter.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Because they rely on the "data" on the CD and LP being the same except for the medium and the digital and analog playback chains to sound the same. There are just too many variables.

You could cut out a bunch of them by using an A/D after your phono preamp to digitize your record then compare that back directly through the D/A and after being stored on a CDR.

Every step is fraught with difficulties but while fighting them you can glean some idea of the various sensitivities. I've enjoyed wonderful music from some CD's, from some records, from some tapes... That's the frustrating thing, if you can do it once, that means it's possible. Now how do you get it reliability? Luck seems to play a big role...

"you are now comparing differences with [the masters], not the medium"

True, and even worse it's them AND the medium, so whose to blame?

Even 'identical' CD's played on the same chain may not sound the same. Back in the green pen days I bought three of the first Stereophile test CD's because they were 3/$10 or something and glad I did. Being the diligent experimentalist and all I made sure that the two test samples sounded the same prior to gooping one's edge and they didn't! So I tried the third and fortunately it sounded the same as one of the others so I was in business. And after gooping it they still sounded the same...

Yes, all of this is quite true, but as a practical matter, we have to compare what we have. Yes, there are way too many low res, compressed CDs. But still, almost all of those who now sing the praises of true high res digital, have been praising digital FOR DECADES!!! I admit high res digital HAS made a breakthrough in quality, but the lack of software is my main objection.

No, fmak. In those days, I threw up when listening to CDs. And it was obvious with my two box Proceed player that bits weren't just bits as the fiber optic cable did not sound as good as the coax.

It is not possible for a CD to have a reference level that is over 0dBfs. There is simply no way to encode such a number. If you are getting a flat top it is either because the test track isn't a sine wave or because something is not working properly in your equipment, i.e. you are getting digital or analog clipping somewhere.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Rip the test disk and examine the samples numerically. You will find that no sample deviates from the allowed range of -32768 to +32767, inclusive. Therefore this test disk is a legal CD. A DAC should play it undistorted. If a DAC can not play it, it is a DAC problem. The most likely cause is limiting in the output of a digital filter. That this happens is evidence that the DAC designer was more interested in good numbers on a spec sheet rather than good sound. By sacrificing less than 1 dB of signal to noise ratio this problem could have been avoided.

Your comment about "hot" CDs is something else. In most cases idiot producers, engineers, and/or musicians are deliberately distorting their "music" with compression and even clipping in the hopes of selling copies to idiot customers who have never heard of a volume control. None of these CDs are too hot, they are just poor. When played on a good system they will sound the same as they did when played in the mastering studio.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Well, I have to admit that my friend's expensive high res digital system IS impressive. He made digital high res copies of some of my vinyl records, and I was hard pressed to tell the difference. In the end, there was a slight difference, but I was SHOCKED at how good his copies sounded. Only a few of my friends can tell the difference between my vinyl records and my friend's digital copies. Of course, this is a great sign for the future of the high end. Progress is sometimes slow and uncertain, but, sometimes, it does occur.

It was not only this dac, which is one of the best, but others as well. Rip it, do a fft analysis on any decent editor, and the distortion harmonics are there. The level is over the 0dB reference line. That is the proof of the pudding.

Can't be, something must be measuring an incorrect level because digital doesn't work beyond 0db!

I've recorded many LPs to digital, and I've clipped signals on numerous occasions. This is readily evident when measuring the results/levels ... numerically ... and NOT ONCE did I get a reading OVER 0db ... hence the "clipping".

Show me a single sample on the disk that is larger than +32767 or smaller than -32768. You can't. Such numbers do not correspond to any possible pattern of pits on the disk. What you describe is no more possible than a five digit odometer on an automobile showing a milage larger than 99,999. There is no magic here whatsoever. Every single bit on the disk can be identified and quantified using a microscope. It isn't even necessary to use a computer to demonstrate this point, but one will need to be a consummate "squint" to examine more than a tiny part of the disk. A competent engineer armed with a microscope and a copy of the Red book specification can do this. I doubt that you have ever read the red book specification or looked at an actual CD under a microscope.

I can take a 1 kHz sine wave in 44/16 format (dithered) and the spectrum shows a single peak, with noise at -128 dB. There are no harmonics. I can resample this to 176.4/16 and look at the spectra. Again no harmonics and the noise is at roughly the same level. If I play this test tone through my speakers there is no distortion at any volume level that I can stand. My system is not broken.

I don't know where you get these DACs that are "the best". If they can't play a simple test tone without distortion they are audiophool equipment.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Yes, I agree that analogue high frequencies are more open and realistic than digital's high frequencies. Yes, just as in blind wine tasting tests, it's each individual's preference that is being tested. Each of us has different "reality triggers" (say dynamic range, flat frequency response, accurate timbre. etc.). Those components that hit your triggers are the best FOR YOU. In wine tastings, I prefer lower alcohol wines that express the terroir that they came from. I hate high alcoholic fruit bombs just as much as I hate thousand watt ss amps and inefficient speakers. Others, just love those 16% Pinot Noir wines.